Evacuee land acquisition under a later notification depends on express exclusion, with unresolved title issues requiring factual review.

Evacuee or composite status did not by itself exclude land from acquisition under the 1965 Section 4 notification, because no express or necessary exclusion could be implied and vesting in the Custodian did not make the land Central Government property. On that basis, the acquisition was not invalid merely for want of exemption. Khasra Nos. 321 and 322 were treated as composite properties until 16 May 1968 and remained within the notification, so the respondents were entitled to additional compensation as directed. The remaining khasras were remitted to the High Court because their composite status, earlier acquisition, and title position required fresh factual determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 1965 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act applied to evacuee or composite lands so as to sustain the subsequent acquisition proceedings; (ii) whether the respondents were entitled to relief in respect of Khasra Nos. 321 and 322; (iii) whether the remaining Khasra numbers required reconsideration by the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the 1965 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act applied to evacuee or composite lands so as to sustain the subsequent acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The earlier exclusion of evacuee lands in the 1959 notification could not be carried forward by implication to the 1965 notification. Mere vesting of evacuee property in the Custodian did not make it the property of the Central Government, and such property could still be acquired for a public purpose. The decisive question was whether the lands stood covered by the 1965 Section 4 notification and whether the respondents had title at the relevant time. Since the 1965 notification did not expressly exclude evacuee lands, no general rule of implied exclusion could be read into it.

Conclusion: The acquisition was not invalid merely because the lands were evacuee or composite lands, and the respondents could not claim automatic exclusion from the 1965 acquisition on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents were entitled to relief in respect of Khasra Nos. 321 and 322.

Analysis: The material on record showed that these two khasras remained composite properties until 16 May 1968. On that footing, they were capable of being covered by the 1965 Section 4 notification. As the same acquisition proceedings had been considered in earlier connected litigation, fairness required that the respondents receive the same compensatory treatment in relation to these khasras.

Conclusion: The acquisition in respect of Khasra Nos. 321 and 322 was maintained, and the respondents were held entitled to additional compensation at the rate directed by the Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the remaining Khasra numbers required reconsideration by the High Court.

Analysis: For the remaining khasras, the record did not clearly establish whether they were still composite properties on the date of the 1965 notification or whether they had already been acquired under the 1955 notification. The respondents' title position also required examination if the properties had already vested earlier. These questions had not been satisfactorily addressed by the High Court and needed factual determination.

Conclusion: The matter relating to the remaining Khasra Nos. 313, 319, 323, 324 and 329 was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the Court declined to treat evacuee status as an implied exclusion from the 1965 acquisition, upheld the relief for Khasra Nos. 321 and 322 with added compensation, and remitted the balance of the matter for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Evacuee or composite status does not by itself exclude land from acquisition under a later notification unless such exclusion is expressly or necessarily established, and unresolved questions of title or earlier vesting require factual adjudication before final relief is granted.

---